48002 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1Antelope Valley Air Quality Management 

District (AQMD), Bay Area AQMD, El Dorado 

County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), 

Imperial County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, San 

Joaquin Valley APCD, South Coast AQMD, Ventura 

County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD. 

2Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, and 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. 

3See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA (Case No. 

4:09–CV–02453–CW), Consent Decree dated 

November 10, 2009, as amended by Notice of 

Stipulated Extensions to Consent Decree Deadlines, 

dated April 28, 2011 (establishing July 10, 2011 

deadline for final action on element (3) of the 2007 

Transport SIP). The July 10, 2011 deadline was 

further extended to July 29, 2011 by Notice of 

Stipulated Extension to Consent Decree Deadlines, 

dated July 7, 2011. 

4Eastern Kern APCD and San Diego County 

APCD. 

(TSCA) section 5(e) consent order for 

this substance. The NCEL is 0.1 mg/m3

as an 8-hour time-weighted average. 

Persons who wish to pursue NCELs as 

an alternative to the § 721.63 respirator 

may request to do as under § 721.30. 

Persons whose § 721.30 requests to use 

the NCELs approach are approved by 

EPA will receive NCELs provisions 

comparable to those listed in the 

corresponding section 5(e) consent 

order. 

(ii) Hazard communication program. 

Requirements as specified in § 721.72 

(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (concentration set at 

0.1 percent), (f), (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), 

(g)(1)(vii), (g)(1)(ix), (g)(2), (g)(3), 

(g)(4)(iii), and (g)(5). 

(iii) Release to water. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.90(a)(1), (b)(1), and 

(c)(1). 

(b) Specific requirements. The 

provisions of subpart A of this part 

apply to this section except as modified 

by this paragraph. 

(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping 

requirements as specified in § 721.125 

(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (k) 

are applicable to manufacturers, 

importers, and processors of this 

chemical substance. 

(2) Limitations or revocation of 

certain notification requirements. The 

provisions of § 721.185 apply to this 

section. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20021 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0211; FRL–9446–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

California; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution; Interference With Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration 

Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of California on 

November 17, 2007, to address the 

‘‘transport SIP’’ provisions of Clean Air 

Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or 

standards) and the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that 

each SIP contain, among other things, 

adequate measures prohibiting 

emissions of air pollutants in amounts 

which will interfere with any other 

State’s measures required under title I, 

part C of the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality. EPA is 

approving California’s SIP revision with 

respect to those Districts that implement 

SIP-approved permit programs meeting 

the approval criteria and simultaneously 

disapproving California’s SIP revision 

with respect to those Districts that do 

not implement SIP-approved permit 

programs meeting the approval criteria, 

as discussed in our May 31, 2011 

proposed rule (76 FR 31263). 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0211. The index to the 

docket for this action is available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material) and 

some may not be available in either 

location (e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI)). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information the 

disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, 

mays.rory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Summary of the Proposed Actions 

On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31263), EPA 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of a SIP revision submitted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) on November 17, 2007, to 

address the ‘‘transport SIP’’ provisions 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 Transport 

SIP). Specifically, EPA proposed a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the 2007 Transport SIP 

with respect to the requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that each SIP 

contain adequate measures prohibiting 

emissions of air pollutants in amounts 

which will interfere with any other 

State’s measures required under title I, 

part C of the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality. We refer to 

this requirement as ‘‘element (3)’’ of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

A. Proposed Action With Respect to 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

We proposed the following actions 

with respect to element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. For nine 

Districts 1 that are designated 

nonattainment and classified under 

subpart 2 of part D, title I of the CAA 

and that have SIP-approved 

nonattainment area new source review 

(NNSR) programs meeting the approval 

criteria discussed in our May 31, 2011 

proposed rule, we proposed to approve 

the 2007 Transport SIP. 

For three Districts 2 with 

nonattainment areas classified under 

subpart 2 for which NNSR SIP revisions 

were necessary to meet the approval 

criteria, we proposed to approve the 

2007 Transport SIP if we finalized 

approval of the required NNSR SIP 

revisions by our July 10, 2011 Consent 

Decree deadline for final action on 

element (3) of the 2007 Transport SIP.3

Alternatively, for any of these Districts 

for which we could not approve the 

required NNSR SIP revision by our July 

10, 2011 deadline, we proposed to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with 

respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and to promulgate a limited 

NNSR Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) addressing the relevant 

requirements. 

For two Districts 4 with ‘‘former 

subpart 1’’ nonattainment areas that 

implement SIP-approved NNSR 

programs meeting the approval criteria, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48003 

5Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD, 

Calaveras County APCD, Feather River AQMD, 

Mariposa County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, 

and Tuolumne County APCD. 

6Note that the waiver provisions in section VI of 

40 CFR part 51 Appendix S no longer apply. See 

Phase 2 Rule, 75 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) and 

NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009) 

(vacating EPA’s elimination of the 18-month 

limitation in 40 CFR part 52.24(k) with respect to 

the waiver provisions in section VI of 40 CFR part 

51 Appendix S). 

7Mendocino County AQMD and Northern 

Sonoma County APCD. 

8See fn. 3 above. 

9San Joaquin Valley APCD and the South Coast 

Air Basin portion of South Coast AQMD. 

10Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay 

Unified APCD, North Coast Unified AQMD, 

Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD. 

11Mendocino County AQMD, Northern Sonoma 

County APCD, and North Coast Unified AQMD. 

Note that footnote 24 of our proposed rule (76 FR 

31263 at 31268) incorrectly identifies Monterey Bay 

Unified APCD instead of Northern Sonoma County 

APCD as one of the three Districts that were subject 

to the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule but that our 

Technical Support Document correctly identifies 

the relevant Districts. 

12Antelope Valley AQMD, Bay Area AQMD, El 

Dorado County APCD, Imperial County APCD, 

Continued 

we proposed to approve the 2007 

Transport SIP. 

For seven Districts 5 with ‘‘former 

subpart 1’’ nonattainment areas that do 

not yet have SIP-approved NNSR 

programs, we proposed to disapprove 

the 2007 Transport SIP but to determine 

that implementation of the provisions of 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix S (‘‘The 

Interpretative Rule’’) 6 during this 

interim period pending EPA’s final 

subpart 2 classifications of these areas 

adequately addresses the requirements 

of element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and, therefore, discharges 

EPA’s obligation to promulgate a FIP for 

these limited purposes. 

For Monterey Bay Unified APCD 

(‘‘Monterey’’), which is designated 

unclassifiable/attainment and has a SIPapproved Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program meeting 

the approval criteria, we proposed to 

approve the 2007 Transport SIP. 

For two Districts 7 with unclassifiable/ 

attainment areas for which we recently 

approved PSD SIP revisions meeting the 

approval criteria by direct final rule, we 

proposed to approve the 2007 Transport 

SIP. Alternatively, we proposed to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP if 

either of these direct final rules were 

withdrawn and would not become 

effective by our July 10, 2011 Consent 

Decree deadline, in which case we 

would promulgate a limited PSD FIP for 

the relevant District based on the 

provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 identifying 

NOX as an ozone precursor. 

For North Coast Unified AQMD 

(‘‘North Coast’’), we proposed to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP and 

to promulgate a limited PSD FIP for 

NOX emission sources only, as 

discussed in our May 31, 2011 proposed 

rule. By separate action published in 

today’s Federal Register, EPA finalized 

that limited PSD FIP for North Coast.8

For the rest of the State, which is 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

subject to the Federal PSD program in 

40 CFR 52.21, we proposed to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but 

to determine that no further action is 

required to address element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has 

already promulgated a PSD FIP for these 

areas. 

B. Proposed Action With Respect to 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

We proposed the following actions 

with respect to element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. For two Districts 9 that are 

designated nonattainment, we proposed 

to approve the 2007 Transport SIP based 

on a determination that implementation 

of The Interpretative Rule during the 

SIP-development period adequately 

addresses the requirements of element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

For five Districts 10 that are designated 

unclassifiable/attainment and that have 

SIP-approved PSD programs meeting the 

approval criteria discussed above, we 

proposed to approve the 2007 Transport 

SIP. 

For the rest of the State, which is 

designated unclassifiable/attainment 

and subject to the Federal PSD program 

in 40 CFR 52.21, we proposed to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but 

to determine that no further action is 

required to address element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has 

already promulgated a PSD FIP for these 

areas. 

C. Proposed Action With Respect to 

Greenhouse Gases 

Finally, with respect to PSD authority 

to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs), we 

proposed to take the following actions. 

For three Districts 11 that were subject to 

the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule (75 FR 

82536, December 30, 2010), we 

proposed to fully approve the 2007 

Transport SIP with respect to element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) based 

on letters from each District. These 

letters clarified that the 2007 Transport 

SIP should be read, with respect to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), to reflect each 

of their PSD programs as they are 

currently federally approved as a result 

of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. 

For Monterey, which has confirmed 

that its SIP provides GHG PSD 

permitting authority at thresholds 

consistent with the Tailoring Rule, we 

proposed to fully approve the 2007 

Transport SIP with respect to element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

For Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 

(‘‘Sacramento’’), which was subject to 

the PSD GHG SIP Call (75 FR 77698, 

December 13, 2010), we proposed to 

fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP 

with respect to element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) if Sacramento’s 

corrective SIP revision to address GHG 

permitting requirements received EPA 

approval. 

For all other areas in California, 

which are subject to the Federal PSD 

program in 40 CFR 52.21, we proposed 

to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP 

but to determine that no further action 

is required to address element (3) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA 

has already promulgated a PSD FIP for 

these areas. 

For a more detailed explanation of our 

evaluation of the 2007 Transport SIP 

with respect to element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and of the 

rationale for our proposed actions, 

please see our May 31, 2011 proposed 

rule and related Technical Support 

Document (76 FR 31263). 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Our May 31, 2011 proposed rule 

provided for a 30-day comment period. 

We did not receive any public 

comments in response to the proposed 

rule. 

III. Final Action 

Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of 

the CAA, EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of the 

2007 Transport SIP submitted by CARB 

on November 17, 2007. We are 

finalizing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval action because the 

2007 Transport SIP is not separable with 

respect to individual California 

Districts, and because, although the 

submittal as a whole strengthens the SIP 

and meets the applicable CAA 

requirements for certain Districts, it 

does not meet the applicable 

requirements for certain other Districts, 

as discussed in Section I of this final 

rule and in our May 31, 2011 proposed 

rule. 

Specifically, we are approving the 

2007 Transport SIP as meeting the 

requirements of element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to 

the following areas: 

• Twelve Districts 12 that implement 

SIP-approved NNSR or PSD programs 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
48004 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Mojave Desert AQMD, San Joaquin Valley APCD, 

South Coast AQMD, Ventura County APCD, YoloSolano AQMD, Eastern Kern APCD, San Diego 

County APCD, and Monterey Bay Unified APCD. 

13Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, and 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. 

14Mendocino County AQMD and Northern 

Sonoma County APCD. 

15Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay 

Unified AQMD, North Coast Unified AQMD, 

Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD. 

16Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay 

Unified APCD, North Coast Unified AQMD, and 

Northern Sonoma County APCD. 

17Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD, 

Calaveras County APCD, Feather River AQMD, 

Northern Sierra AQMD, Mariposa County APCD, 

and Tuolumne County APCD. 

18We note that CARB submitted a PSD SIP 

revision for North Coast Unified AQMD on 

February 28, 2011 to address, among other things, 

the requirement to identify NOX as an ozone 

precursor. 

19Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Mendocino 

County AQMD, and Northern Sonoma County 

APCD. 

meeting the approval criteria for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; 

• Three Districts 13 for which we have 

recently approved the required NNSR 

SIP revisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (see 76 FR 43183, July 20, 2011 

(Final rule, Sacramento Metropolitan 

AQMD NNSR and PSD SIP revisions); 

and Final rule, ‘‘Revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan, 

Placer County Air Pollution Control 

District and Feather River Air Quality 

Management District,’’ signed June 30, 

2011); 

• Two Districts 14 for which we have 

recently approved the required PSD SIP 

revisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (see 76 FR 26192 (May 6, 

2011)); 

• Five Districts 15 that implement SIPapproved PSD programs meeting the 

approval criteria for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS; 

• Four Districts 16 that implement 

SIP-approved PSD programs meeting the 

approval criteria for greenhouse gases 

(GHGs); and 

• One District (Sacramento) for which 

we have recently approved the required 

PSD SIP revision for GHGs (see 76 FR 

43183, July 20, 2011 (Final rule, 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD NNSR 

and PSD SIP revisions)). 

We are simultaneously disapproving 

the 2007 Transport SIP for failure to 

meet the requirements of element (3) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect 

to the following areas: 

• Seven Districts 17 with ‘‘former 

subpart 1’’ ozone nonattainment areas 

that do not yet have SIP-approved 

NNSR programs meeting the approval 

criteria for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS; 

• One District (North Coast) for which 

EPA has not yet approved a PSD SIP 

revision meeting the approval criteria 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and 

• All areas in the State that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program in 

40 CFR 52.21 for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and/ 

or GHGs, where the California SIP 

remains deficient with respect to PSD 

requirements. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D, title 

I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or 

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a 

sanctions clock. The 2007 Transport SIP 

was not submitted to meet either of 

these requirements. Therefore, this final 

limited disapproval does not trigger a 

sanctions clock. 

Disapproval of a required SIP revision 

also triggers the requirement under CAA 

section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a 

FIP no later than 2 years from the date 

of the disapproval unless the State 

corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. For the seven 

Districts with ‘‘former subpart 1’’ ozone 

nonattainment areas for which we are 

disapproving the 2007 Transport SIP 

(because they do not yet have SIPapproved NNSR programs meeting the 

approval criteria for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS), we are finalizing 

our proposal to conclude that current 

implementation of The Interpretative 

Rule in these areas adequately addresses 

the requirements of element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and, therefore, 

discharges EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate a FIP for these limited 

purposes. 

For all other Districts for which we 

are disapproving the 2007 Transport 

SIP, with the exception of North Coast, 

EPA has already incorporated into the 

applicable SIP the provisions of the 

Federal PSD program contained in 40 

CFR 52.21 and, therefore, has no further 

obligation to promulgate a FIP to 

address the requirements of element (3) 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

With respect to North Coast, which 

implements a PSD program that does 

not currently satisfy element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, by separate action 

published in today’s Federal Register, 

EPA finalized a limited PSD FIP, as 

discussed herein and in our May 31, 

2011 proposed rule. That limited PSD 

FIP will apply only until EPA approves 

the required PSD SIP revision for this 

area.18

Finally, with respect to the five 

Districts 19 for which NNSR or PSD SIP 

revisions were necessary to meet the 

transport SIP approval criteria for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, we are not 

finalizing the limited NNSR/PSD FIPs 

that we had proposed in the alternative 

to codify in 40 CFR sections 52.233, 

52.270(b)(3)(iv), and 52.270(b)(4)(iv). 

We are approving the 2007 Transport 

SIP for these Districts based on our final 

approval of the required SIP revisions, 

as discussed in Section I of this final 

rule and in our May 31, 2011 proposed 

rule. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals and 

limited approvals/limited disapprovals 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any 

new requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because this 

limited approval/limited disapproval 

action does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48005 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

promulgated today does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

approves pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves in part and 

disapproves in part a State plan 

implementing a Federal requirement, 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves in part and disapproves in part 

a State plan implementing a Federal 

requirement. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
48006 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA (Case No. 

4:09–CV–02453–CW), Consent Decree dated 

November 10, 2009, as amended by Notice of 

Stipulated Extensions to Consent Decree Deadlines, 

dated April 28, 2011, and Notice of Stipulated 

Extension to Consent Decree Deadline, dated July 

7, 2011. 

2See ibid. 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Review of This Action 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 7, 2011. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Incorporation 

by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: July 25, 2011. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

paragraph (c)(386)(ii)(A)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(386) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(4) 2007 Transport SIP at pages 21–22 

(Attachment A) (‘‘Evaluation of 

interference with Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Measures of 

any other State’’). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.283 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.283 Interstate Transport. 

(a) * * * (3) The requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 

interference with any other state’s 

measures required under title I, part C 

of the Clean Air Act to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

except that these requirements are not 

fully met in the Air Pollution Control 

Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality 

Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in 

ths paragraph. 

(i) Amador County APCD 

(ii) Butte County AQMD 

(iii) Calaveras County APCD 

(iv) Feather River AQMD 

(v) Northern Sierra AQMD 

(vi) Mariposa County APCD 

(vii) Tuolumne County APCD 

(viii) North Coast Unified AQMD 

(ix) All other areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–19898 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0211; FRL–9448–5] 

Limited Federal Implementation Plan; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

California; North Coast Unified Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 

the North Coast Unified Air Quality 

Management District (NCUAQMD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). We 

proposed this action simultaneously 

with our proposed limited approval and 

limited disapproval of a SIP revision 

submitted by California to address the 

‘‘transport SIP’’ provisions of Clean Air 

Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or 

standards) and the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) NAAQS (2007 Transport 

SIP) (76 FR 31263, May 31, 2011). This 

limited FIP establishes Federal 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permitting requirements for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission sources 

only in the NCUAQMD. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on September 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0211 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents are listed at http://www.

regulations.gov, some information may 

be publicly available only at the hard 

copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), and some may not be publicly 

available in either location (e.g., 

Confidential Business Information). To 

inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal 

business hours with the contact listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31263), EPA 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of California’s 2007 

Transport SIP with respect to the 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that each SIP contain 

adequate measures prohibiting 

emissions of air pollutants in amounts 

which will interfere with other States’ 

measures required under title I, part C 

of the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality. We refer to 

this requirement as ‘‘element (3)’’ of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Simultaneously, 

EPA proposed a limited FIP for the 

NCUAQMD to address certain 

requirements of ‘‘element (3)’’ of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) that California’s 2007 

Transport SIP failed to satisfy. EPA 

proposed this limited FIP because of a 

statutory duty that we were obligated 

under the terms of a Consent Decree to 

meet by July 10, 2011, unless we 

approved a SIP meeting the applicable 

requirements by that date.1 This 

Consent Decree deadline has been 

extended by stipulation to July 29, 

2011.2

Specifically, for the NCUAQMD, we 

proposed to disapprove California’s 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES